Unless Otherwise Noted, All Material Copyright (c) 1996-2025 in the U.S.A. and Internationally by Wolf Britain. All Rights Reserved.

Prescript: I'm looking for someone to go 50/50 with me and move to either Ecuador, Costa Rica, Belize, Guatemala, or Mexico where we can make a very low income go much further with a lower cost, and higher standard, of living (than living in the States on such a low income). This includes an only income of Social Security Disability (SSDI) and/or Retirement benefits. The Social Security Administration most definitely DOES allow SSDI and/or Retirement benefits, but not Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, to be sent to recipients in most other countries! There are many books about moving and living abroad available at the public library and/or at Amazon.com . Naturally, I realize we would probably have to spend some time getting to know eachother, and finding out if we're compatible, before moving abroad together. We could even have our own separate "spaces" by choosing to rent or purchase a house or apartment with separate quarters, and still save considerable money in monthly costs compared to living in the States on the same income. If you might be interested, want to ask me some questions, and/or want to discuss it, please e-mail me at the address below.

CONTENTS OF THIS PAGE(Click on the link to go to that part of the page):

"The idea, which entered Western consciousness several centuries ago, that black people are less than human, made possible the Atlantic slave trade, during which perhaps 40 million people died. Beliefs about racial inferiority, whether applied to blacks or Jews or Arabs or Orientals, have led to mass murder.

"The idea, presented by political leaders and accepted by the American public in 1964, that communism in Vietnam was a threat to our "national security" led to policies that cost a million lives, including those of 55,000 young Americans.

"The belief, fostered in the Soviet Union, that "socialism" required a ruthless policy of farm collectivization, as well as the control of dissent, brought about the deaths of countless peasants and large numbers of political prisoners.

"Other ideas---leave the poor on their own ("laissez-faire") and help the rich ("economic growth")---have led the U.S. government for most of its history to subsidize corporations while neglecting the poor, thus permitting terrible living and working conditions and incalculable suffering and death. In the years of the Reagan presidency, "laissez-faire" meant budget cutting for family care, which led to high rates of infant mortality in city ghettos.

"We can reasonably conclude that how we think is not just mildly interesting, not just a subject for intellectual debate, but a matter of life and death.

"If those in charge of our society---politicians, corporate executives, and owners of press and television---can dominate our ideas, they will be secure in their power. They will not need soldiers patrolling the streets. We will control ourselves.

"Because force is held in reserve and the control is not complete [YET!], we can call ourselves a "democracy." True, the openings and the flexibility make such a society a more desirable place to live. But they also create a more effective form of control. We are less likely to object if we can feel that we have a "pluralist" society, with two parties instead of one, three branches of government instead of one-man rule, and various opinions in the press instead of one official line.

"A close look at this pluralism shows that it is very limited. We have the kinds of choices that are given in multiple-choice tests, where you can choose a, b, c, or d. But e, f, g, and h are not even listed.

"And so we have the Democratic and Republican parties (choose a or b), but no others are really tolerated or encouraged or financed. Indeed, there is a law limiting the nationally televised presidential debates to the two major parties.

"We have a "free press," but big money dominates it; you can choose among Times, Newsweek, and U.S. News & World Report. On television, you can choose among NBC, CBS, and ABC [and now FOX, CNN, etcetera, which are all just as conservative and big money dominated, if some of them aren't more so, like FOX---they only give "dissenting" opinions that aren't believed will make much difference anyway]. There is a dissident press, but it does not have the capital of the great media chains and cannot get the rich corporate advertising, and so it must strain to reach small numbers of people. There is public television [and radio], which [are] occasionally daring, but also impoverished and most often cautious [because they are corporate funded as well].

"We have three branches of government, with "checks and balances," as we were taught in junior high school. But one branch of government (the presidency) gets us into wars and other two (Congress and the Supreme Court) go sheepishly along.

"There is the same limited choice in public policy. During the Vietnam War, the argument for a long time was between those who wanted a total bombing of Indochina and those who wanted a limited bombing. The choice of withdrawing from Vietnam altogether was not offered. Daniel Ellsberg, working for Henry Kissinger in 1969, was given the job of drawing a list of alternative policies on Vietnam. As one possibility on his long list he suggested total withdrawal from the war. Kissinger looked at the possibilities and crossed that one off before giving the list to President Richard Nixon.

"In debates on the military budget there are heated arguments about whether to spend $300 billion or $200 billion. A proposal to spend $100 billion (thus making $200 billion available for human needs) is like the e or f in a multiple-choice test---it is missing. To propose zero billion makes you a candidate for a mental institution.

"On the question of prisons there is debate on how many prisons we should have. But the idea of abolishing prisons is too outrageous to be discussed.

"We hear argument about how much the elderly [and the disabled] should have to pay for health care, but the idea that they should not have to pay anything, indeed, that no one should have to pay for health care, is not up for debate.

"Thus we grow up in a society where our choice of ideas is limited and where certain ideas dominate. We hear them from our parents, in the schools, in the churches, in the newspapers, and on radio and television. They have been in the air ever since we learned to walk and talk. They constitute an American ideology--- that is, a dominant pattern of ideas. Most people accept them, and if we do, too, we are less likely to get into trouble.

"The dominance of these ideas is not ... an accident, an innocent result of people thinking freely. There is a process of natural (or, rather unnatural) selection, in which certain orthodox ideas are encouraged, financed, and pushed forward by the most powerful mechanisms of our culture. These ideas are preferred because they are safe; they don't threaten established wealth or power.

"For instance:

""Be realistic; this is the way things are; there's no point thinking about how things should be."

""People who teach or write or report the news should be objective; they should not try to advance their own opinions."

""There are unjust wars, but also just wars."

""If you disobey the law, even for a good cause, you should accept your punishment."

""If you work hard enough, you'll make a good living. If you are poor, you have only yourself to blame."

""Freedom of speech is desirable, but not when it threatens national security."

""Racial equality is desirable, but we've gone far enough in that direction."

""Our Constitution is our greatest guarantee of liberty and justice."

""The United States must intervene from time to time in various parts of the world with military power to stop communism and promote democracy."

""If you want to get things changed, the only way is to go through the proper channels."

""We need nuclear weapons to prevent war."

""There is much injustice in the world but there is nothing that ordinary people, without wealth or power, can do about it."

"These ideas are not accepted by all Americans. But they are believed widely enough and strongly enough to dominate our thinking. And as long as they do, those who hold wealth and power in our society will remain secure in their control.

"In the year 1984 Forbes magazine, a leading periodical for high finance and big business, drew up a list of the wealthiest individuals in the United States. The top 400 people had assets totaling $60 billion. At the bottom of the population there were 60 million people who had no assets at all.

"Around the same time, the economist Lester Thurow estimated that 482 very wealthy individuals controlled (without necessarily owning) over $2,000 billion ($2 trillion).

"Consider the influence of such a very rich class---with its inevitable control of press, radio, television, and education---on the thinking of the nation.

"Dissident ideas can still exist in such a situation, but they will be drowned in criticism and made disreputable, because they are outside the acceptable choices. Or they may be allowed to survive in the corners of the culture---emaciated, but alive---and presented as evidence of our democracy, our tolerance, and our pluralism.

"A sophisticated system of control that is confident of its power can permit a measure of dissidence. However, it watches its critics carefully, ready to overwhelm them, intimidate them, and even suppress them should they ever seriously threaten the system, or should the establishment, in a state of paranoia, think they do. If readers think I am exaggerating with words such as "watching . . . overwhelm . . . suppress . . . paranoia," they should read the volumes of reports on the FBI and the CIA published in 1975 by the Senate Select Committee on Government Operations.

"However, government surveillance and threats are the exception [but not for much longer]. What normally operates day by day is the quiet dominance of certain ideas we are expected to hold by our neighbors, our employers, and our political leaders; the ones we quickly learn are the most acceptable. The result is an obedient, acquiescent, passive citizenry---a situation that is deadly to democracy[!]

"If one day we decide to reexamine these beliefs and realize they do not come naturally out of our innermost feelings or our spontaneous desires, are not the result of independent thought on our part, and, indeed, do not match the real world as we experience it, then we have come to an important turning point in life. Then we find ourselves examining, and confronting, American ideology....

"....When political ideas are analyzed---issues like violence in human nature, realism and idealism, the best forms of government or whether there should be government at all, a citizen's obligation to the state, and the proper distribution of wealth in society---we are in the area of political theory, or political philosophy. There is a list of famous political thinkers who are traditionally used to initiate discussion on these long-term problems, including Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Madison, Rousseau, Marx, and Freud....

"There is in orthodox thinking a great dependence on experts. Because modern technological society has produced a breed of experts who understand technical matters that bewilder the rest of us, we think in matters of social conflict, which require moral judgments, we must also turn to experts.

"There are two false assumptions about experts. One is that they see more clearly and think more intelligently than ordinary citizens. Sometimes they do, sometimes not. The other assumption is that these experts have the same interests as ordinary citizens, want the same things, hold the same values, and, therefore, can be trusted to make decisions for all of us.

"To depend on great thinkers, authorities, and experts is, it seems to me, a violation of the spirit of democracy. Democracy rests on the idea that, except for technical details for which experts may be useful, the important decisions of society are within the capability of ordinary citizens. Not only can ordinary people make decisions about these issues, but they ought to, because citizens understand their own interests more clearly than any experts.

"In John Le Carre's novel The Russia House, a dissident Russian scientist is assured that his secret document has been entrusted "to the authorities. People of discretion. Experts." He becomes angry:

""I do not like experts. They are our jailers. I despise experts more than anyone on earth.... They solve nothing! They are servants of whatever system hires them. They perpetuate it. When we are tortured, we shall be tortured by experts. When we are hanged, experts will hang us.... When the world is destroyed, it will be destroyed not by its madmen but by the sanity of its experts and the superior ignorance of its bureaucrats[!]"

"We are expected to believe that great thinkers---experts---are objective, that they have no axes to grind and no biases, and that they make pure intellectual judgments. However, the minds of all human beings are powerfully influenced (though not totally bound) by their backgrounds, by whether they are rich or poor, male or female, black or white or Asian, in positions of power, or in lowly circumstances. Even scientists making "scientific" observations know that what they see will be affected by their position.

"Why should we cherish "objectivity," as if ideas were innocent, as it they don't serve one interest or another? Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrassing to our point of view. But we don't want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don't play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don't take sides in those struggles.

"Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now. It is a world of clashing interests---war against peace, nationalism against internationalism, equality against greed, and democracy against elitism---and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts....

"It seems to me we should make the most of the fact that we live in a country that, although controlled by wealth and power, has openings and possibilities missing in many other places. The controllers are gambling that those openings will pacify us, that we will not really use them to make the bold changes that are needed if we are to create a decent society. We should take that gamble.

"We are not starting from scratch. There is a long history in this country of rebellion against the establishment, of resistance to orthodoxy. There has always been a commonsense perception that there are things seriously wrong and that we can't really depend on those in charge to set them right.

"This perception has led Americans to protest and rebel. I think of the Boston Bread Rioters and Carolina antitax farmers of the eighteenth century; the black and white abolitionists of slavery days; the working people of the railroads, mines, textile mills, steel mills, and auto plants who went on strike, facing the clubs of policemen and the machine guns of soldiers to get an eight-hour workday and a living wage; the women who refused to stay in the kitchen and marched and went to jail for equal rights; the black protesters and antiwar activists of the 1960s; and the protesters against industrial pollution and war preparations in the 1980s.

"In the heat of such movements brains are set stirring with new ideas, which live on through quieter times, waiting for another opportunity to ignite into action and change the world around us.

"Dissenters, I am aware, can create their own orthodoxy. So we need a constant reexamination of our thinking, using the evidence of our eyes and ears and the realities of our experience to think freely. We need declarations of independence from all nations, parties, and programs---all rigid dogmas [except from True Christianity, which is NOT a "dogma"; as dogmas are false systems; the former is NOT false AT ALL; and it is the majority of false Christianity that has existed for centuries, and has slaughtered millions of innocent people, that is false, just as the soon-to-come professed-Christian government that will be set up in the United States will be false].

"The experience of our century tells us that the old orthodoxies, the traditional ideologies, the neatly tied bundles of ideas---capitalism, socialism, democracy---need to be untied, so that we can play and experiment with all the ingredients, add others, and create new combinations in looser bundles. We know as we come to the twenty-first century that we desperately need to develop new, imaginative approaches to the human problems of our time.

"For citizens to do this on their own, to listen with some skepticism to the great thinkers and the experts, and to think for themselves about the great issues of today's world, is to make democracy come alive.

"We might begin by confronting one of those great thinkers, Niccolo Machiavelli, and examining the connection between him and the makers of foreign policy in the United States." [Text in brackets ("[ ]") added by me.]

[Another note by me: Please continue below and read about the evils of "Machiavellian Realism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Means and Ends", in Chapter Two of the same book, about the other influences that went into the making of U.S. foreign policy today, and that in no way truly justify it in any way, shape or form whatsoever.]

THE FOLLOWING IS THE SECOND CHAPTER FROM THE SAME BOOK AS ABOVE, ON THE TRUTH OF WHERE U.S. GOVERNMENT FOREIGN POLICY ORIGINATES FROM AND IS HEADED IF IT IS NOT STEMMED, THAT WAS ADDED TO THE SITE ON 3-13-02:

"About 500 years ago modern political thinking began. Its enticing surface was the idea of "realism." Its ruthless center was the idea that with a worthwhile end one could justify any means. Its spokesman was Niccolo Machiavelli.

"In the year 1498 Machiavelli became advisor on foreign and military affairs to the government of Florence, one of the great Italian cities of that time. After fourteen years of service, a change of government led to his dismissal, and he spent the rest of his life in exile in the countryside outside Florence. During that time he wrote, among other things, a little book called The Prince, which became the world's most famous handbook of political wisdom for governments and their advisors.

"Four weeks before Machiavelli took office, something happened in Florence that made a profound impression on him. It was a public hanging. The victim was a monk named Savonarola, who preached that people could be guided by their "natural reason." This threatened to diminish the importance of the [Catholic] Church fathers, who then showed their importance by having Savonarola arrested. His hands were bound behind his back and he was taken through the streets in the night, the crowds swinging lanterns near his face, peering for the signs of his dangerousness.

"Savonarola was interrogated and tortured for ten days. They wanted to extract a confession, but he was stubborn. The Pope, who kept in touch with the torturers, complained that they were not getting results quickly enough. Finally, the right words came, and Savonarola was sentenced to death. As his body swung in the air, boys from the neighborhood stoned it. The corpse was set afire, and when the fire had done its work, the ashes were strewn in the river Arno.

"In The Prince, Machiavelli refers to Savonarola and says, "Thus it comes about that all armed prophets have conquered and unarmed ones failed."

"Political ideas are centered on the issue of ends (What kind of society do we want?) and means (How will we get it?). In that one sentence about unarmed prophets Machiavelli settled for modern governments the question of ends: conquest. And the question of means: force.

"Machiavelli refused to be deflected by utopian dreams or romantic hopes and by questions of right and wrong or good and bad. He is the father of modern political realism, or what has been called realpolitik: "It appears to me more proper to go to the truth of matter than to its imagination . . . for how we live is so far removed from how we ought to live, that he who abandons what is done for what ought to be done, will rather learn to bring about his own ruin than his preservation."

"It is one of the most seductive ideas of our time. We hear on all sides the cry of "be realistic . . . you're living in the real world," from political platforms, in the press, and at home. The insistence on building more nuclear weapons, when we already possess more than enough to destroy the world, is based on "realism." The Wall Street Journal, approving a Washington, D.C., ordinance allowing the police to arrest any person on the street refusing to move on when ordered, wrote, "D.C.'s action is born of living in the real world." And consider how often a parent (usually a father) has said to a son or daughter: "It's good to have idealistic visions of a better world, but you're living in the real world, so act accordingly."

"How many times have the dreams of young people---the desire to help others; to devote their lives to the sick or the poor; or to poetry, music, or drama---been demeaned as foolish romanticism, impractical in a world where one must "make a living"? Indeed, the economic system reinforced the same idea by rewarding those who spend their lives on "practical" pursuits---while making life difficult for the [True] artists, poets, nurses, teachers, and social workers.

"Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of someone else's description of reality.

"When Machiavelli claims to "go to the truth of the matter," his is making the frequent claim of important people [false] (writers, political leaders) who press their ideas on others: that their account is "the truth," that they are being "objective."

"But his reality may not be our reality; his truth may not be our truth. The real world is infinitely complex. Any description of it must be a partial description, so a choice is made about what part of reality to describe, and behind that choice is often a definite interest, in the sense of something useful for a particular individual or group. Behind the claim of someone giving us an objective picture of the real world is the assumption that we all have the same interests, and so we can trust the one who describes the world for us, because that person has our interests at heart.

"The notion that all our interests are the same (the political leaders and the citizens, the millionaire and the homeless person) deceives us. It is a deception useful to those who run modern societies, where the support of the population is necessary for the smooth operation of the machinery of everyday life and the perpetuation of the present arrangements of wealth and power.

"When the Founding Fathers of the United States wrote the Preamble to the Constitution, their first words were, "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice..." The Constitution thus looked as if it were written by all the people, representing their interests.

"In fact, the Constitution was drawn up by fifty-five men, all white and mostly rich, who represented a certain elit[ist] group in the new nation. The document itself accepted slavery as legitimate, and at that time about one of every five persons in the population was a black slave. The conflicts between rich and poor and black and white, the dozens of riots and rebellions in the century before the convening of the Constitutional Convention (Shay's Rebellion [etc.]) were all covered over by the phrase "We the People."

"Machiavelli did not pretend to a common interest. He talked about what "is necessary for a prince." He dedicated The Prince to the rich and powerful Lorenzo di Medici, whose family ruled Florence and included popes and monarchs. (The Columbia Encyclopedia has this intriguing description of the Medici: "The genealogy of the family is complicated by the numerous illegitimate offspring and by the tendency of some of the members to dispose of each other by assassination.")

"In exile, writing his handbook of advice for the Medici, Machiavelli ached to be called back to the city to take his place in the inner circle. He wanted nothing more than to serve the prince.

"In our time we find greater hypocrisy. Our Machiavellis, our presidential advisers, our assistants for national security, and our secretaries of state insist they serve "the national interest," "national security," and "national defense." These phrases put everyone in the country under one enormous blanket, camouflaging the differences between the interest of those who run the government and the interest of the average citizen.

"The American Declaration of Independence, however, clearly understood that difference of interest between government and citizen. It says that the purpose of government is to secure certain rights for its citizens---life, liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness. But governments may not fulfill these purposes and so "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government."

"The end of Machiavelli's The Prince is clearly different. It is not the welfare of the citizenry, but national power, conquest, and control. All is done in order "to maintain the state."

"In the United States today, the Declaration of Independence hangs on schoolroom walls, but foreign policy follows Machiavelli. Our language is more deceptive than his; the purpose of foreign policy, our leaders say, is to serve the "national interest," fulfill our "world responsibility." In 1986 General William Westmoreland said that during World War II the United States "inherited the mantle of leadership of the free world" and "became the international champions of liberty." This from the man who, as chief of military operations in the Vietnam War, conducted a brutal campaign that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese noncombatants.

"Sometimes, the language is more direct, as when President Lyndon Johnson, speaking to the nation during the Vietnam War, talked of the United States as being "number one." Or, when he said, "Make no mistake about it, we will prevail." [A favorite saying of G.W. Bush that he is using these days, a very egocentric U.S. government attitude.]

"Even more blunt was a 1980 article in the influential Foreign Affairs by John Hopkins political scientist Robert W. Tucker; in regard to Central America, he wrote, "We have regularly played a determining role in making and in unmaking governments, and we have defined what we have considered to be the acceptable behavior of governments." Tucker urged "a policy of a resurgent America to prevent the coming to power of radical [democratic] regimes of Central America" and asked, "Would a return to a policy of the past work in Central America? . . . There is no persuasive reason for believing it would not. . . . Right-wing governments will have to be given steady outside support, even, if necessary, by sending in American forces."

"Tucker's suggestion became the Central America policy of the Reagan administration, as it came into office in early 1981 [one of the most evil presidential administrations in the history of the United States]. His "sending in American forces" was too drastic a step for an American public that clearly opposed another Vietnam (unless done on a small scale, like Reagan's invasion of Grenada, and Bush's invasion of Panama). But for the following eight years, the aims of the United States were clear: to overthrow the left-wing government of Nicaragua and to keep in place the right-wing government of El Salvador [all at the great expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent people that the U.S. government doesn't care about AT ALL].

"Two Americans who visited El Salvador in 1983 for the New York City Bar Association, described for the New York Times a massacre of eighteen peasants by local troops in Sonsonate province [and this is only one of many travesties in El Salvador and Nicaragua, as well as the many other places previously listed that the United States government has slaughtered noncombatants for decade upon decade for over one hundred years]:

""Ten [U.S.] military advisers are attached to the Sonsonate armed forces. . . . The episode contains all the unchanging elements of the Salvadoran tragedy---uncontrolled military violence against civilians, the apparent ability of the wealthy to procure official violence . . . and the presence of United States military advisers, working with the Salvadoran military responsible for these monstrous practices . . . after [at least] 30,000 unpunished murders by security and military forces and over 10,000 "disappearances" of civilians in custody, the root causes of the killings remain in place and the killing goes on."

"The purpose of its policy in Central America, said the U.S. government, was to protect the country from the Soviet threat: a Soviet base in Nicaragua and a possible Soviet base in El Salvador. This was not quite believable. Was the Soviet Union prepared to launch an invasion of the United States from Central America? Was a nation that could not win a war on its borders with Afghanistan going to send an army across the Atlantic Ocean to Nicaragua? And what then? Would that army then march up through Honduras into Guatemala, then through all of Mexico, into Texas, and then . . . ?

"It was as absurd as the domino theory of the Vietnam War, in which the falling dominos of Southeast Asia would have had to swim the Pacific to get to San Francisco. Did the Soviet Union, with intercontinental ballistic missiles, with submarines off the coast of Long Island, need Central America as a base for attacking the United States?

"Nevertheless, the Kissinger Commission, set up by President Reagan to advise him on Central American policy, warned in its report that our "southern flank" was in danger---a biological reference designed to make all of us nervous.

"Even a brief look at history was enough to make one skeptical. How could we explain our frequent interventions in Central America before 1917, before the Bolshevik Revolution [and the U.S.S.R. coming into being]? How could we explain our taking control of Cuba and Puerto Rico in 1898; our seizure of the Canal Zone in 1903; our dispatch of marines to Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and Guatemala in the early 1900s; our bombardment of a Mexican town in 1914; and our long military occupation of Haiti and the Dominican Republic starting in 1915 and 1916? All this before the Soviet Union existed[!]

"There was another official reason given for U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s: to "restore democracy." This, too, was hardly believable. Throughout the period after World War II our government had supported undemocratic governments, indeed vicious military dictatorships: in Batista's Cuba, Somoza's Nicaragua, Armas's Guatemala, Pinochet's Chile, and Duvalier's Haiti as well as in El Salvador and other countries of Latin America.

"The actual purpose of U.S. policy in Central America was expressed by Tucker in the most clear Machiavellian terms: "The great object of American foreign policy ought to be the restoration of a more normal political world, a world in which those states possessing the elements of great power once again play the role their power entitles them to play".

"Undoubtedly, there are Americans who respond favorably to this idea, that the United States should be a "great power" in the world, should dominate other countries, should be number one. Perhaps the assumption is that our domination is benign and that our power is used for kindly purposes. This history of our relations with Latin America do not suggest this. Besides, is it really in keeping with the American ideal of equality of all peoples to insist that we have the right to control the affairs of other countries? Are we the only country entitled to a Declaration of Independence?"

"Means: The Lion and the Fox"

"There should be clues to the rightness of the ends we pursue by examining the means we use to achieve those ends. I am assuming there is always some connection between ends and means. All means become ends in the sense that they have immediate consequences apart from the ends they are supposed to achieve. And all ends are themselves means to other ends. Was there not a link, for Machiavelli, between his crass end---power for the prince---and the various means he found acceptable?

"For a year Machiavelli was ambassador to Cesare Borgia, conqueror of Rome. He describes one event that "is worthy of note and of imitation by others." Rome had been disorderly, and Cesare Borgia decided he needed to make the people "peaceful and obedient to his rule." Therefore, "he appointed Messer Remirro de Orco, a cruel and able man, to whom he gave the fullest authority" and who, in a short time, made Rome "orderly and united." But Cesare Borgia knew his policies had aroused hatred, so, in order to purge the minds of the people and to win them over completely, he resolved to show that if any cruelty had taken place it was not by his orders, but through the harsh disposition of his minister. And having found the opportunity he had him cut in half and placed one morning in the public square at Cesena with a piece of wood and blood-stained knife by his side."

"In recent American history, we have become familiar with the technique of rulers letting subordinates do the dirty work, which they can later disclaim. As a result of the Watergate scandals in the Nixon administration (a series of crimes committed by underlings in his behalf), a number of his people (former CIA agents, White House aides, and even the attorney-general) were sent to prison. But Nixon himself, although he was forced to resign his office, escaped criminal prosecution, arranging to be pardoned when his vice-president, Gerald Ford, became president. Nixon retired in prosperity and, in a few years, became a kind of elder statesman, a Godfather of politics, looked to for sage advice.

"Perhaps as a way of calming the public in that heated time of disillusionment with the government because of Vietnam and Watergate, a Senate committee in 1974-1975 conducted an investigation of the intelligence agencies. It discovered that the CIA and the FBI had violated the law countless times (opening mail, breaking into homes and offices, etc.) In the course of that investigation, it was also revealed that the CIA, going back to the Kennedy administration, had plotted the assassination of a number of foreign rulers, including Cuba's Fidel Castro. But the president himself, who clearly was in favor of such actions, was not to be directly involved, so that he could deny knowledge of it. This was given the term plausible denial.

"As the committee reported:

""Non-attribution to the United States for covert operations was the original and principal purpose of the so-called doctrine of "plausible denial." Evidence before the Committee clearly demonstrates that this concept, designed to protect the United States and its operatives from the consequences of disclosures, has been expanded to mask decisions of the President and his senior staff members."

"In 1988 a story in a Beirut magazine led to information that Ronald Reagan's administration had been secretly selling arms to Iran, the declared enemy of the United States, and using the proceeds to give military aid to counterrevolutionaries (the "contras") in Nicaragua, thus violating an act passed by Congress. Reagan and Vice President Bush denied involvement, although the evidence pointed very strongly to their participation. Instead of impeaching them, however, Congress put their emissaries on the witness stand, and later several of them were indicted. One of them (Robert McFarland) tried to commit suicide. Another, Colonel Oliver North, stood trial for lying to Congress, was found guilty, but was not sentenced to prison [and went on to become a yet another official of government, and a radio talk show co-host]. Reagan was not compelled to testify about what he had done. He retired in peace and Bush became the next president of the United States, both beneficiaries of plausible denial. Machiavelli would have admired the operation.

"A prince, Machiavelli suggested, should emulate both the lion and the fox. The lion uses force. "The character of peoples varies, and it is easy to persuade them of a thing, but difficult to keep them in the persuasion. And so it is necessary to order things so that when they no longer believe, they can be made to believe by force. . . . Fortune is a woman, and it is necessary, if you wish to master her, to conquer her by force." The fox uses deception.

""If all men were good, this would not be good advice, but since they are dishonest and do not keep faith with you, you, in return, need not keep faith with them; and no prince was ever at a loss for plausible reasons to cloak a breach of faith. . . . The experience of our times shows those princes to have done great things who have had little regard for good faith, and have been able by astuteness to confuse men's brains."

"This advice for the prince has been followed in our time by all sorts of dictators and generalissimos. Hitler kept a copy of The Prince at his bedside, it is said. . . . Mussolini used Machiavelli for his doctoral dissertation. Lenin and Stalin are also supposed to have read Machiavelli. Certainly the Italian Communist Gramsci wrote favorably about Machiavelli, claiming that Machiavelli was not really giving advice to princes, who knew all that already, but to "those who do not know," thus educating "those who must recognize certain necessary means, even if those of tyrants, because they want certain ends."

"The prime ministers and presidents of modern democratic states, despite their pretensions, have also admired and followed Machiavelli. Max Lerner, a prominent liberal commentator of the post-World War II period, in his introduction to Machiavelli's writings, says of him: "The common meaning he has for democrats [including Republicans] and dictators alike is that, whatever your ends, you must be clear-eyed and unsentimental in pursuit of them." Lerner finds in Machiavelli's Discourses that one of its important ideas is "the need in the conduct even of a democratic state for the will to survive and therefore for ruthless instead of half-hearted measures."

"Thus the democratic state, behaving like the lion, uses force when persuasion does not work. It uses it against its own citizens when they cannot be persuaded to obey the laws. It uses it against other peoples in the act of war, not always in self-defense, but often when it cannot persuade other nations to do its bidding.

"For example, at the start of the twentieth century, although Columbia was willing to sell the rights to the Panama Canal to the United States, it wanted more money than the United States was willing to pay. So the warships were sent on their way, a little revolution was instigated in Panama, and soon the Canal Zone was in the hands of the United States. As one U.S. senator described the operation, "We stole it fair and square."

"The modern liberal state, like Machiavelli's fox, often uses deception to gain its ends---not so much deception of the foreign enemy (which, after all, has little faith in its adversaries), but of its own citizens, who have been taught to trust their leaders.

"One of the important biographies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, is titled Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox. Roosevelt deceived the American public at the start of World War II, in September and October 1941, misstating the facts about two instances involving German submarines and American destroyers (claiming the destroyer Greer, which was attacked by a German submarine, was on an innocent mission when in fact it was tracking the sub for the British navy). A historian sympathetic to him wrote, "Franklin Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor. . . . He was like the physician who must tell the patient lies for the patient's own good."

"Then there were the lies of President John F. Kennedy and Secretary of State Dean Rusk when they told the public the United States was not responsible for the 1961 invasion of Cuba, although in fact the invasion had been organized by the CIA.

"The escalation of the war in Vietnam started with a set of lies---in August 1964---about incidents in the Gulf of Tonkin. The United States announced two "unprovoked" attacks on U.S. destroyers by North Vietnamese boats. One of them almost certainly did not take place. The other was undoubtedly provoked by the proximity (ten miles) of the destroyer to the Vietnamese coast and by a series of CIA-organized raids on that coast.

"The lies then multiplied. One of them was President Johnson's statement that the U.S. Air Force was only bombing "military targets." Another was a deception by President Richard Nixon; he concealed from the American public the 1969-1970 massive bombing of Cambodia, a country with which we were supposed to be at peace."

"The Advisers"

"Advisers and assistants to presidents, however committed they are in their rhetoric to the values of modern liberalism [and republicanism], have again and again participated in acts of deception that would have brought praise from Machiavelli. His goal was to serve the prince and national power. So was theirs. Because they were advisers to a liberal democratic state, they assumed that advancing the power of such a state was a moral end, which then justified both force and deception. But cannot a liberal democratic [and republican] state carry out immoral policies? Then the adviser (deceiving himself this time) would consider that his closeness to the highest circles of power put him in a position to affect, even reverse, such policies.

"It was a contemporary of Machiavelli, Thomas More, who warned intellectuals about being trapped into service to the state and about the self-deception in which the adviser believes he will be a good influence in the higher councils of government. In More's book Utopia, spokesperson Raphael is offered the advice commonly given today to young people who want to be social critics, prodding the government from outside, like Martin Luther King or Ralph Nader. The advice is to get on the inside. Raphael is told, "I still think that if you could overcome the aversion you have to the courts of princes, you might do a great deal of good to mankind by the advice that you would give."

"Raphael replies, "If I were at the court of some king and proposed wise laws to him and tried to root out of him the dangerous seeds of evil, do you not think I would either be thrown out of his court or held in scorn [and probably killed]?" He goes on,

""Imagine me at the court of the King of France. Suppose I were sitting in his council with the King himself presiding, and that the wisest men were earnestly discussing by what methods and intrigues the King might keep Milan, recover Naples so often lost, then overthrow the Venetians and subdue all Italy, and add Flanders, Brabant, and even all Burgundy to his realm, besides some other nations he had planned to invade. Now in all this great ferment, with so many brilliant men planning together how to carry on war, imagine so modest a man as myself standing up and urging them to change all their plans."

"More might have been describing the historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., adviser to President Kennedy, who thought it was a "terrible idea" to go ahead with the CIA Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 [which very nearly caused a nuclear World War III], two years after the revolution there. But he did not raise his voice in protest, because, as he later admitted, he was intimidated by the presence of "such august figures as the Secretaries of State and Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff." He wrote, "In the months after the Bay of Pigs I bitterly reproached myself for having kept so silent during those crucial discussions in the Cabinet room."

"But the intimidation of Schlesinger-as-adviser went beyond silencing him in the cabinet room---it led him to produce a nine-page memorandum to President Kennedy, written shortly before the invasion of Cuba, in which he is as blunt as Machiavelli himself in urging deception of the public to conceal the U.S. role in the invasion. This would be necessary because "a great many people simply do not at this moment see that Cuba represents so grave and compelling a threat to our national security as to justify a course of action which much of the world will interpret as calculated aggression against a small nation."

"The memorandum goes on, "The character and repute of President Kennedy constitute one of our greatest national resources. Nothing should be done to jeopardize this invaluable asset. When lies must be told, they should be told by subordinate officials." It goes on to suggest "that someone other than the President make the final decision and do so in his absence---someone whose head can later be placed on the block if things go terribly wrong." (Cesare Borgia again, only lacking the blood-stained knife.)

"Schlesinger included in his memo sample questions and lying answers in case the issue of the invasion came up in a press conference:

""Q. Mr. President, is CIA involved in this affair?"
""A. I can assure you that the United States has no intention of using force to overthrow the Castro regime."

"The scenario was followed. Four days before the invasion, President Kennedy told a press conference, "There will not be, under any conditions, any intervention in Cuba by U.S. armed forces."

"Schlesinger was just one of dozens of presidential advisers who behaved like little Machiavellis in the years when revolutions in Vietnam and Latin America brought hysterical responses on the part of the U.S. government. These intellectuals could see no better role for themselves than to serve national power.

"Kissinger, secretary of state to Nixon [part of an elitist, racist, Nazi, global conspiracy of eugenics and genocide seeking to kill off half of the Earth's population at the present time to attempt to protect the survival of those very same elitists who believe they are supposedly the fittest to survive, that they are intellectually and racially superior to all the rest of mankind, particularly to Judeo-Christians, blacks and native peoples, and that all of the latter must be eradicated in order to supposedly preserve the purity of the superior and the survival of the race, and that George W. Bush and his family, and many other past and present government officials, are very much a part of {SEE Dr. Leonard G. Horowitz's latest, superbly researched book, DEATH IN THE AIR, Globalism, Terrorism and Toxic Warfare, Copyright (c) Leonard G. Horowitz, 2001---written prior to 9-11-01, but predictive of the events that occurred on the latter date}], did not even have the mild qualms of Schlesinger. He surrendered himself with ease to the princes of war and destruction. In private discussions with old colleagues from Harvard who thought the Vietnam War immoral, he presented himself as someone trying to bring it to an end, but in his official capacity he was the willing intellectual tool of a policy that involved the massive killing of civilians in Vietnam [and Laos and Cambodia as well].

"Kissinger approved the bombing and invasion of Cambodia, an act so disruptive of the delicate Cambodian society that it can be considered an important factor in the rise of the murderous Pol Pot regime in that country. After he and the representatives of North Vietnam had negotiated a peace agreement to end the war in late 1972, he approved the breaking off of the talks and the brutal bombardment of residential districts in Hanoi by the most ferocious bombing plane of the time, the B-52.

"Kissinger's biographers describe his role: "If he had disapproved of Nixon's policy, he could have argued against the Cambodian attack. But there is no sign that he ever mustered his considerable influence to persuade the President to hold his fire. Or that he ever considered resigning in protest. Quite the contrary, Kissinger supported the policy."

"During the Christmas 1972 bombings New York Times columnist James Reston wrote,

""It may be and probably is true, that Mr. Kissinger as well as Secretary of State Rogers and most of the senior officers in the State Department are opposed to the President's bombing offensive in North Vietnam. . . . But Mr. Kissinger is too much a scholar, with too good a sense of humor and history, to put his own thoughts ahead of the president's."

"It seems that journalists too, can be Machiavellian[!]"

"Serving National Power"

"Machiavelli never questioned that national power and the position of the prince were proper ends: "And it must be understood that a prince . . . cannot observe all those things which are considered good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against faith, against charity, against humanity, and against religion."

"The end of national power may be beneficial to the prince, and even to the prince's advisers, an ambitious lot. But why should it be assumed as a good end for the average citizen? Why should the citizen tie his or her fate to the nation-state, which is perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives and liberties of its own citizens for the power, the profit, and the glory of politicians or corporate executives or generals?

"For a prince, a dictator, or a tyrant national power is an end unquestioned. A democratic [and republican] state, however substituting an elected president for a prince, must present national power as benign, serving the interests of [so-called] liberty, justice, and humanity. If such a state, which is surrounded with the rhetoric of democracy and liberty and, in truth, has some measure of both, engages in a war that is clearly against a vicious and demonstrably evil enemy, then the end seems so clean and clear that any means to defeat that enemy may seem justified.

"Such a state was the United States and such an enemy was fascism, represented by Germany, Italy, and Japan [which the global conspiracy mentioned above, including the Roman Catholic Church {false Christianity}, was very secretly promoting---it is all there in True history, and available to you if you really want to know the Truth---showing even their own conspirators' that people of the general population are expendable; and, believe me, the powerful members of the global conspiracy, and those they want to protect, at least for the time being, were no where near "ground zero" when the hideous conflagration(s) happened]. Therefore, when the atomic bomb appeared to be the means for a quicker victory, there was little hesitation to use it[!]

"Very few of us can imagine ourselves as presidential advisers [God forbid!], having to deal with their moral dilemmas (if, indeed, they retain enough [so-called] integrity to consider them dilemmas). It is much easier, I think, for average citizens to see themselves in the position of the scientists who were secretly assembled in New Mexico during World War II to make the atomic bomb. We may be able to imagine our own trade or profession, our particular skills, called on to serve the policies of the nation. The scientists who served Hitler, like the rocket expert Wernher von Braun, could be as cool as Machiavelli in their subservience; they would serve national power without asking questions. They were professionals, totally consumed with doing "a good job" and they would do that job for whoever happened to be in power. So, when Hitler was defeated and Von Braun was brought by military intelligence agents to the United States, he cheerfully went ahead and worked on rockets for the United States, as he had done for Hitler.

"As one satirical songwriter put it:

""Once the rockets are up,
Who cares where they come down
That's not our department,
Says Wernher von Braun."

"The scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project were not like that. One cannot imagine them turning to Hitler and working for him if he were victorious. They were conscious, in varying degrees, that this was a war against fascism and that it was invested with a powerful [supposed] moral cause. Therefore, to build this incredibly powerful weapon was to use a terrible means, but for a [so-called] noble end.

"And yet there was one element these scientists had in common with Wernher von Braun: the sheer pleasure of doing a job well, of professional competence, and of scientific discovery, all of which could make [such evil people] forget, or at least put in the background, the question of human consequences.

"After the war when the making of a thermonuclear bomb was proposed, a bomb a thousand times more destructive that the one dropped on Hiroshima, J. Robert Oppenheimer, personally horrified by the idea, was still moved to pronounce the scheme of Edward Teller and Stanislaw Ulam for producing it as "technically sweet." Teller, defending the project against scientists who saw it as genocidal, said, "The important thing in any science is to do the thing that can be done." And, whatever Enrico Fermi's moral scruples were (he was one of the top scientists in the Manhattan Project), he pronounced the plan for the making the bombs "superb physics." [These people were insane, psychotic, sociopathic people who were being led by the powers of darkness, and we have even more such people today, especially in "our" government; so don't be fooled into believing that we don't, or that mankind has gotten better; "we" haven't! We're going downhill and getting worse and worse every day, as evil prepares for its final destruction!]

"Robert Jungk, a German researcher who interviewed many of the scientists involved in the making of the bomb, tried to understand their lack of resistance to dropping the bomb on Hiroshima. "They felt themselves caught in a vast machinery [which they were] and they certainly were inadequately informed as to the true political and strategic situation." But he does not excuse their inaction. "If at that time they had the moral strength to protest on purely humane grounds against the dropping of the bomb, their attitude would no doubt have deeply impressed the President, the Cabinet and the generals [but they didn't]."

"Using the atomic bombs on populated cities was [supposedly] justified in moral terms by American political leaders. Henry Stimson, who's Interim Committee had the job of deciding whether or not to use the atomic bomb, said later it was done "to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the [American] men in the Armies." This was based on the assumption that without atomic bombs, an invasion of Japan would be necessary, which would cost many American lives.

"It was a morality limited by nationalism, [and] racism. The saving of American lives was considered far more important than the saving of [innocent civilian] Japanese lives. Numbers were wildly thrown into the air (for example, Secretary of State James Byrnes talked of "a million casualties" resulting from an invasion) but there was no attempt to seriously estimate American casualties and weigh that against the consequences for Japanese men and women, old people and babies. (The closest to such an attempt was a military estimate that an invasion of the southernmost island of Japan would cause 30,000 American dead and wounded.)

"THE EVIDENCE TODAY IS OVERWHELMING THAT AN INVASION OF JAPAN [AND THE DROPPING OF THE NUCLEAR BOMBS] WAS NOT NECESSARY TO BRING THE WAR TO AN END. JAPAN WAS [ALREADY] DEFEATED, IN DISARRAY, AND READY TO SURRENDER. THE U.S. STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY, WHICH INTERVIEWED 700 JAPANESE MILITARY AND POLITICAL OFFICIALS AFTER THE WAR, CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION:

""BASED ON A DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND SUPPORTED BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE SURVIVING JAPANESE LEADERS INVOLVED, IT IS THE SURVEY'S OPINION THAT CERTAINLY PRIOR TO 31 DECEMBER 1945, AND IN ALL PROBABILITY PRIOR TO 1 NOVEMBER 1945, JAPAN WOULD HAVE SURRENDERED EVEN IF THE ATOMIC BOMBS HAD NOT BEEN DROPPED, EVEN IF RUSSIA HAD NOT ENTERED THE WAR, AND EVEN IF NO INVASION HAD BEEN PLANNED OR CONTEMPLATED [AND HIGH-RANKING U.S. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS KNEW THIS BEFORE THE DECISION WAS MADE TO DROP THE BOMBS]."

"AFTER THE WAR AMERICAN SCHOLAR ROBERT BUTOW WENT THROUGH THE PAPERS OF THE JAPANESE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, THE RECORDS OF THE INTERNATIONAL MILITARY TRIBUNAL OF THE FAR EAST (WHICH TRIED JAPANESE LEADERS AS WAR CRIMINALS), AND THE INTERROGATION FILES OF THE U.S. ARMY. HE ALSO INTERVIEWED MANY OF THE JAPANESE PRINCIPALS AND CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION: "HAD THE ALLIES GIVEN THE PRINCE (PRINCE KONOYE, SPECIAL EMISSARY TO MOSCOW, WHO WAS WORKING ON RUSSIAN INTERCESSION FOR PEACE) A WEEK OF GRACE IN WHICH TO OBTAIN HIS GOVERNMENT'S SUPPORT FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSALS, THE WAR MIGHT HAVE ENDED TOWARD THE LATTER PART OF JULY OR THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE MONTH OF AUGUST, WITHOUT THE ATOMIC BOMB AND WITHOUT SOVIET PARTICIPATION IN THE CONFLICT[!]"

"ON JULY 13, 1945, THREE DAYS BEFORE THE SUCCESSFUL EXPLOSION OF THE FIRST ATOMIC BOMB IN NEW MEXICO, THE UNITED STATES INTERCEPTED JAPANESE FOREIGN MINISTER TOGO'S SECRET CABLE TO AMBASSADOR SATO IN MOSCOW, ASKING THAT HE GET THE SOVIETS TO INTERCEDE AND INDICATING THAT JAPAN WAS READY TO END THE WAR, SO LONG AS IT WAS NOT UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.

"ON AUGUST 2, THE JAPANESE FOREIGN OFFICE SENT A MESSAGE TO THE JAPANESE AMBASSADOR IN MOSCOW, "THERE ARE ONLY A FEW DAYS LEFT IN WHICH TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO END THE WAR. . . . AS FOR THE DEFINATE TERMS . . . IT IS OUR INTENTION TO MAKE THE POTSDAM THREE-POWER DECLARATION [WHICH CALLED FOR UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER (AUTHOR'S WORDS IN BRACKETS IN THIS CASE)] THE BASIS OF THE STUDY REGARDING THESE TERMS."

"BARTON BERNSTEIN, A STANFORD HISTORIAN WHO HAS STUDIED THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS CLOSELY, WROTE,

""THIS MESSAGE, LIKE EARLIER ONES, WAS PROBABLY INTERCEPTED BY AMERICAN INTELLIGENCE AND DECODED. IT HAD NO EFFECT ON AMERICAN POLICY. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE MESSAGE WAS SENT TO TRUMAN AND BYRNES [SECRETARY OF STATE (AUTHOR'S WORDS IN BRACKETS AGAIN IN THIS CASE)], NOR ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY FOLLOWED THE INTERCEPTED MESSAGES DURING THE POTSDAM CONFERENCE. THEY WERE UNWILLING TO TAKE RISKS IN ORDER TO SAVE JAPANESE LIVES[!]"

"IN HIS DETAILED AND ELOQUENT HISTORY OF THE MAKING OF THE BOMB, RICHARD RHODES SAYS, "THE BOMBS WERE AUTHORIZED NOT BECAUSE THE JAPANESE REFUSED TO SURRENDER BUT BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO SURRENDER UNCONDITIONALLY[!]"

"THE ONE CONDITION NECESSARY FOR JAPAN TO END THE WAR WAS AN AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN THE SANCTITY OF THE JAPANESE EMPEROR, WHO WAS A HOLY FIGURE TO THE JAPANESE PEOPLE. FORMER AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN JOSEPH GREW, BASED ON HIS KNOWLEDGE OF JAPANESE CULTURE, HAD BEEN TRYING TO PERSUADE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF ALLOWING THE EMPEROR TO REMAIN IN PLACE[!]

"HERBERT FEIS, WHO HAD UNIQUE ACCESS TO STATE DEPARTMENT FILES AND TO RECORDS ON THE MANHATTAN PROJECT, NOTED THAT IN THE END THE UNITED STATES DID GIVE THE ASSURANCES THE JAPANESE WANTED ON THE EMPEROR. HE WRITES, "THE CURIOUS MIND LINGERS OVER THE REASONS WHY THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT WAITED SO LONG BEFORE OFFERING THE JAPANESE THOSE VARIOUS ASSURANCES WHICH IT DID EXTEND LATER[!]"

"WHY WAS THE UNITED STATES IN A RUSH TO DROP THE BOMB, IF THE REASON OF SAVING LIVES TURNS OUT TO BE EMPTY, IF THE PROBABILITY WAS THAT THE JAPANESE WOULD HAVE SURRENDERED EVEN WITHOUT AN INVASION? HISTORIAN GAR ALPEROVITZ, AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN OFFICIALS CLOSEST TO [PRESIDENT] TRUMAN AND MOST INFLUENTIAL IN THE FINAL DECISION AND ESPECIALLY THE DIARIES OF HENRY STIMSON, CONCLUDES THAT THE ATOMIC BOMBS WERE DROPPED TO IMPRESS THE SOVIET UNION, AS A FIRST ACT IN ESTABLISHING AMERICAN POWER IN THE POSTWAR WORLD[!] HE POINTS OUT THAT THE SOVIET UNION HAD PROMISED TO ENTER THE WAR AGAINST JAPAN ON AUGUST 8. THE BOMB WAS DROPPED ON AUGUST 6[!]

"THE SCIENTIST LEO SZILARD HAD MET WITH TRUMAN'S MAIN POLICY ADVISER IN MAY 1945 AND REPORTED LATER: "BYRNES DID NOT [CLAIM] THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO USE THE BOMB AGAINST THE CITIES OF JAPAN IN ORDER TO WIN THE WAR. . . . MR. BYRNES' VIEW WAS THAT OUR POSSESSING AND DEMONSTRATING THE BOMB [THE WAY WE DID] WOULD MAKE RUSSIA MORE MANAGEABLE[!]"

"THE END OF DROPPING THE BOMB. . . ., FROM THE EVIDENCE, TO HAVE BEEN NOT WINNING THE WAR, WHICH WAS ALREADY ASSURED, NOT SAVING LIVES, FOR IT WAS HIGHLY PROBABLE NO AMERICAN INVASION WOULD BE NECESSARY, BUT THE AGGRANDIZEMENT OF AMERICAN NATIONAL POWER AT THE MOMENT AND IN THE POSTWAR PERIOD[!] FOR THIS END, THE MEANS WERE AMONG THE MOST AWFUL YET DEVISED BY [MANKIND]---BURNING PEOPLE ALIVE, MAIMING THEM HORRIBLY, AND LEAVING THEM WITH RADIATION SICKNESS, WHICH WOULD KILL THEM SLOWLY AND WITH GREAT PAIN[!]

"I REMEMBER MY JUNIOR-HIGH-SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES TEACHER TELLING THE CLASS THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DEMOCRACY LIKE THE UNITED STATES AND THE "TOTALITARIAN STATES" WAS THAT "THEY BELIEVE THAT THE END JUSTIFIES ANY MEANS, AND WE DO NOT[!]" BUT THIS WAS BEFORE HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI[!]

"TO MAKE A PROPER MORAL JUDGMENT, WE WOULD HAVE TO PUT INTO THE BALANCING THE TESTIMONY OF THE VICTIMS. HERE ARE THE WORDS OF [ONLY] THREE SURVIVORS, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO BE MULTIPLIED BY TENS OF THOUSANDS TO GIVE A FULLER PICTURE [AS FOLLOWS].

"A THIRTY-FIVE-YEAR-OLD MAN: "A WOMAN WITH HER JAW MISSING AND HER TONGUE HANGING OUT OF HER MOUTH WAS WANDERING AROUND THE AREA OF SHINSO-MACHI IN THE HEAVY, BLACK RAIN. SHE WAS HEADING TOWARD THE NORTH CRYING FOR HELP."

"A SEVENTEEN-YEAR-OLD GIRL: "I WALKED PAST HIROSHIMA STATION . . . AND SAW PEOPLE WITH THEIR BOWELS AND BRAINS COMING OUT. . . . I SAW AN OLD LADY CARRYING A SUCKLING INFANT IN HER ARMS. . . . I SAW MANY CHILDREN . . . WITH DEAD MOTHERS. . . . I JUST CANNOT PUT INTO WORDS THE HORROR I FELT."

"A FIFTH-GRADE GIRL: "EVERYBODY IN THE SHELTER WAS CRYING OUT LOUD. THOSE VOICES. . . . THEY AREN'T CRIES, THEY ARE MOANS THAT PENETRATE TO THE MARROW OF YOUR BONES AND MAKE YOUR HAIR STAND ON END. . . . I DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES I CALLED BEGGING THAT THEY WOULD CUT OFF MY BURNED ARMS AND LEGS. . . ."

"FOR THE IDEA THAT ANY MEANS---MASS MURDER, THE MISUSE OF SCIENCE, THE CORRUPTION OF PROFESSIONALISM---ARE ACCEPTABLE TO ACHIEVE THE END OF NATIONAL POWER, THE ULTIMATE EXAMPLE OF OUR TIME IS HIROSHIMA[!] FOR US, AS CITIZENS, THE EXPERIENCE OF HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI SUGGESTS THAT WE REJECT MACHIAVELLI, THAT WE EXAMINE FOR OURSELVES THE ENDS OF PUBLIC POLICY TO DETERMINE WHOSE INTERESTS THEY REALLY SERVE[!] WE MUST EXAMINE THE MEANS USED TO ACHIEVE THOSE ENDS TO DECIDE IF THEY ARE COMPATIBLE WITH EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS ON EARTH[!]"

"The Anti-Machiavellians"

"There have always been people who did think for themselves, against the dominant ideology, and when there were enough of them history had its splendid moments: a war was called to a halt, a tyrant was overthrown, an enslaved people won its freedom, the poor won a small victory. Even some people close to the circles of power, in the face of overwhelming pressure to conform, have summoned the moral strength to dissent, ignoring the Machiavellian advice to leave the end unquestioned and the means unexamined.

"Not all the atomic scientists rushed into the excitement of building the bomb. When Oppenheimer was recruiting for the project, as he later told the Atomic Energy Commission, most people accepted. "This sense of excitement, of devotion and of [so-called] patriotism in the end prevailed." However, the physicist I.I. Rabi, asked by Oppenheimer to be his associate director at Los Alamos, refused to join. He was heavily involved in developing radar, which he thought important for the war, but he found it abhorrent, as Oppenheimer reported, that "the culmination of three centuries of physics" should be a weapon of mass destruction[!]

"Just before the bomb was tested and used, Rabi worried about the role of scientists in the war:

""If we take a stand that our object is merely to see that the next war is bigger and better, we will ultimately lose the respect of the public. . . . We will become the unpaid servants of the munitions makers and mere technicians rather than the self-sacrificing public-spirited citizens which we feel ourselves to be."

"Nobel Prize-winning physical chemist James Franck, working with the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory on problems of building the bomb, headed a committee on social and political implications of the new weapon. In June 1945 the Franck Committee wrote a report advising against a surprise atomic bombing of Japan: "If we consider international agreement on total prevention of nuclear warfare as the paramount objective . . . this kind of introduction of atomic weapons to the world may easily destroy all our chances of success." Dropping the bomb "will mean a flying start toward an unlimited armaments race," the report said.

"The committee went to Washington to deliver the report personally to Henry Stimson, but were told, falsely, that he was out of the city. Neither Stimson nor the scientific panel advising him was in a mood to accept the argument of the Franck Report.

"Scientist Leo Szilard, who had been responsible for the letter from Albert Einstein to Franklin Roosevelt suggesting a project to develop an atomic bomb, also fought a hard but futile battle against the bomb being dropped on a Japanese city. The same month that the bomb was successfully tested in New Mexico, July 1945, Szilard circulated a petition among the scientists, protesting in advance against the dropping of the bomb, arguing that "a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of opening the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale." Determined to do what he could to stop the momentum toward using the bomb, Szilard asked his friend Einstein to give him a letter of introduction to President Roosevelt. But just as the meeting was being arranged, an announcement came over the radio that Roosevelt was dead.

"Would Einstein's great prestige have swayed the decision? It is doubtful. Einstein, known to be sympathetic to socialism and pacifism, was excluded from the Manhattan Project and did not know about the momentous decisions being made to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"One adviser to Harry Truman took a strong position against the atomic bombing of Japan: Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard. As a member of Stimson's Interim Committee, at first he agreed with the decision to use the bomb on a Japanese city, but then changed his mind. He wrote a memorandum to the committee talking about the reputation of the United States "as a great humanitarian nation" and suggesting the Japanese be warned and that some assurance about the treatment of the emperor might induce the Japanese to surrender. It had no effect.

"A few military men of high rank also opposed the decision. General Dwight Eisenhower, fresh from leading the Allied armies to victory in Europe, met with Stimson just after the successful test of the bomb in Los Alamos. He told Stimson he opposed use of the bomb because the Japanese were ready to surrender[!] Eisenhower later recalled, "I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." General Hap Arnold, head of the army air force, believed Japan could be brought to surrender without the bomb[!] The fact that important military leaders saw no need for the bomb lends weight to the idea that the reasons for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were political [and racist, as well as part of the global genocide efforts of the military-industrial complex].

"In the operations of U.S. foreign policy after World War II, there were a few bold people who rejected Machiavellian subservience and refused to accept the going orthodoxies. Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas was at a crucial meeting of advisers when President Kennedy was deciding whether to proceed with plans to invade Cuba. Arthur Schlesinger, who was there, wrote later that "Fulbright, speaking in an emphatic and incredulous way, denounced the whole idea."

"During the Vietnam War, advisers from MIT and Harvard were among the fiercest advocates of ruthless bombing, but a few rebelled. One of the earliest was James Thomson, a Far East expert in the State Department who resigned his post and wrote an eloquent article in the Atlantic Monthly criticizing the U.S. presence in Vietnam.

"While [the very evil] Henry Kissinger was playing Machiavelli to Nixon's prince, at least three of his aides objected to his support for an invasion of Cambodia in 1970. William Watts, asked to coordinate the White House announcement on the invasion of Cambodia, declined and wrote a letter of resignation. He was confronted by Kissinger aide General Al Haig, who told him, "You have an order from your Commander in Chief." He, therefore, could not resign, Haig said. Watts replied, "Oh yes, I can---and I have!" Roger Morris and Anthony Lake, asked to write the speech for President Nixon justifying the invasion, refused and instead wrote a joint letter of resignation.

"The most dramatic action of dissent during the war in Vietnam came from Daniel Ellsberg, a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard who had served in the marines and held important posts in the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the embassy in Saigon. He had been a special assistant to Henry Kissinger and then worked for the Rand Corporation, a private "think tank" of brainy people who contracted to do top-secret research for the U.S. government. When the Rand Corporation was asked to assemble a history of the Vietnam War, based on secret documents, Ellsberg was appointed as one of the leaders of the project. But he had already begun to feel pangs of conscience about the brutality of the war being waged by his government. He had been out in the field with the military and what he saw persuaded him that the United States did not belong in Vietnam. Then, reading the documents and helping to put together the history, he saw how many lies had been told to the public and was reinforced in his feelings.

"With the help of a former Rand employee he had met in Vietnam, Anthony Russo, Ellsberg secretly photocopied the entire 7,000-page history---the "Pentagon Papers" as they came to be called---and distributed them to certain members of Congress as well as to the New York Times. When the Times, in a journalistic sensation, began printing this "top-secret" document, Ellsberg was arrested and put on trial. The counts against him could have brought a prison sentence of 130 years. But while the jury deliberated the judge learned, through the Watergate scandal, that Nixon's "plumbers" had tried to break into Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office to find damaging material and he declared the case tainted and called off the trial. [Too bad we don't seem to have such honest, principled judges that take such strong, correct stands today; and, unfortunately, there already are less and less such people and stands today; at least from people in positions of governmental power, as they are becoming more and more a part of, or the pawns of, the elitists that control the world behind the scenes.]

"Ellsberg's was only one of a series of resignations from government that took place during and after the Vietnam War. A number of operatives of the CIA quit their jobs in the late sixties and early seventies and began to write and speak about the secret activities of the agency---for example, Victor Marchetti, Philip Agee, John Stockwell, Frank Snepp, and Ralph McGehee.

"For the United States, as for other countries, Machiavellianism dominates foreign policy, but the courage of a small number of dissenters suggests the possibility that some day the larger public will no longer accept that kind of "realism." Machiavelli himself might have smiled imperiously at this suggestion, and said, "You're wasting your time. Nothing will change. It's human nature."

"That claim is worth exploring [in the next chapter: Violence and Human Nature, proving that it is NOT human nature to be Machiavellian]." [Text in brackets ("[ ]") usually added by me; and capitalization emphasis also added by me.]

[Another note by me: Please get a hold of this book and read the rest of it for yourself. Thank you.]

Postscript: I'm looking for someone to go 50/50 with me and move to either Ecuador, Costa Rica, Belize, Guatemala, or Mexico where we can make a very low income go much further with a lower cost, and higher standard, of living (than living in the States on such a low income). This includes an only income of Social Security Disability (SSDI) and/or Retirement benefits. The Social Security Administration most definitely DOES allow SSDI and/or Retirement benefits, but not Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, to be sent to recipients in most other countries! There are many books about moving and living abroad available at the public library and/or at Amazon.com . Naturally, I realize we would probably have to spend some time getting to know eachother, and finding out if we're compatible, before moving abroad together. We could even have our own separate "spaces" by choosing to rent or purchase a house or apartment with separate quarters, and still save considerable money in monthly costs compared to living in the States on the same income. If you might be interested, want to ask me some questions, and/or want to discuss it, please e-mail me at the address below.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR VISITING MY SITE! NOW, PLEASE CHECK OUT MY SPONSORS, AND/OR GO TO MY NEXT PAGE WITH THE LINKS ON THE RIGHT, OR AT THE END OF MY SPONSORS, BELOW:

Complete Site Update On 3-13-15;But I Add To And/or MakeCorrections To The Site OnVirtually A Daily Basis.

Disclaimer, Summary of Website Content and Intent, and Copyright Information: The purpose of this site is to seek to form legal rights, including but not necessarily limited to Equal, Human, Civil, Disability, Patient, Transportation, Parental, Housing, Tenant, and Liberty Rights, into a much more widespread reality in the United States and the World today; and the material on the site is presented in a form legal to the entire world community, except perhaps in extremely tyrannous, autocratic, authoritarian, imperialistic, colonialistic, oppressive, repressive, and/or anti-democratic countries. There is not even one legal form available on this site because this site does not practice law or give legal advice, nor does it practice medicine, give medical advice or prescribe treatment(s) for medical diseases and/or illnesses, which you should obtain from licensed legal and/or medical professionals such as attorneys, paralegals, doctors, nurses, etc. All of the statements made on this website are the beliefs of Wolf Britain and millions of other people, but they are not necessarily the beliefs of the site's sponsors. Unless otherwise noted, all material on this website is copyrighted (c) 1996-2025 in the U.S.A. and Internationally by S. Wolf Britain. All rights are reserved.

THIS IS MY MORE COMMENTS, PART THREE PAGE. WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO? CLICK ON ONE OF THE LINK BUTTONS BELOW:

Postscript: I'm looking for someone to go 50/50 with me and move to either Ecuador, Costa Rica, Belize, Guatemala, or Mexico where we can make a very low income go much further with a lower cost, and higher standard, of living (than living in the States on such a low income). This includes an only income of Social Security Disability (SSDI) and/or Retirement benefits. The Social Security Administration most definitely DOES allow SSDI and/or Retirement benefits, but not Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits, to be sent to recipients in most other countries! There are many books about moving and living abroad available at the public library and/or at Amazon.com . Naturally, I realize we would probably have to spend some time getting to know eachother, and finding out if we're compatible, before moving abroad together. We could even have our own separate "spaces" by choosing to rent or purchase a house or apartment with separate quarters, and still save considerable money in monthly costs compared to living in the States on the same income. If you might be interested, want to ask me some questions, and/or want to discuss it, please e-mail me at the address below.

Thank you for your interest; and I hope you truly enjoyed your visit. Please come back soon and visit my site.